thurstonxhowell:It's important to note whether the tanker was empty when it struck the bridge or became so afterwards.

Empty oil tanker scrapes bridge. Hull wasn't breached, no oil was spilled. But just as the journalist, who wrote the article, I need to get to my minimum number of words before I get paid. therefore I will go on to mention that while the article sounds silly, it is very important for US readers to have the information repeated to them multiple times. I assume that this is because they fail at reading (This is a well known fact) and so if they miss it the first time they can still pick up on it the second or third time.

As a side note, at least in some instances, storage tanks can be labeled as "empty" if they are less than 3% of capacity. So a 350,000 gallon tanker might be "empty" if it contains less than around 1000 gallons.

/not the Exxon Valdez/not the end of the world/still more than capable of making a mess, especially when you add in the engines fuel and oil

Heh. No. A company that supplies ships with fuel and other sundries. Although now that I think of it, they'd be all set for the zombie apocalypse... A fenced compound on the water with millions of gallons of fuel, a warehouse full of survival gear, and if things get too bad there's a fleet of tugboats and barges handy to make a getaway.

This is useful information as many have pointed out; it was merely presented inarticulately. A follow-up was most assuredly called for; that's a big ship in a busy port and most people would like to know that it isn't spewing oil into the bay. And we've actually gotten some shipping-knowledgeable folks in here to clarify it.

Corrected version: An oil tanker crashed into the bridge's fenders, but the hull wasn't breached and the fenders performed as designed. No oil cargo nor fuel oil was spilled, and in fact the ship was listed as "empty," although that can mean that there is still environmentally-significant quantities of cargo onboard. The ship is now at anchor near Alcatraz.